The religious left?

[johnsonma]

See, you're taking your opinions without unstanding what you're talking about. Paul was quoting the Corinthians as saying women could not speak in Church. If you would actually read in Context, you would see Paul calls out to those asking if the word of God only came to them that they would know women could not talk in Church?
If you know the story of Corinthians, then you would realize why women in that city probably were not allowed to talk.

The context with which I judged it in was that, when it was written it was put in there to keep a certain group of women from asking questions in one of the churchs of corinth. But arguing over one verse is pointless, there are many more. You will always argue them from a point of missed context or a different interpretation because this is the only way to argue in favor of such things. Do you not think that the people who interpreted the context that you googled could possibly be biased and be trying to prove it wasn't a sexist part of the bible?


In all the argument I've heard of people saying something was out of context on this forum, you are the first to try to explain the actual context and even then only barely. I gave you my reasoning, it seems pretty logical to me.

 

[riser]

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Sh*t almost all of my teachers have been women... I knew Mrs. Huntington was going to hell, how dare she have authority over me!



"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)

-This sounds like a good way to get a nights sleep on the couch.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

50 sheckels is about 150$...


Still think that the bible is the infallible word of God? It seems pretty clear that if you think God wrote this book then God is an asshole and thinks women are second class citizens.

Old testament or new testament......... major difference. Also, these are the words of people. Again, maybe you've been swayed by how many people have wrongly used the Bible.

Jesus taught apostles. Apostles carried on his teachings but were not perfect. You're reading a letter written to a specific person about a specific issue; it is not the teaching, but is it a response written by someone else.

That's probably the biggest misunderstanding of the Bible. A lot of the Bible is a collection of writings from the someone in the church to a specific group.

 

[riser]

See, you're taking your opinions without unstanding what you're talking about. Paul was quoting the Corinthians as saying women could not speak in Church. If you would actually read in Context, you would see Paul calls out to those asking if the word of God only came to them that they would know women could not talk in Church?
If you know the story of Corinthians, then you would realize why women in that city probably were not allowed to talk.

The context with which I judged it in was that, when it was written it was put in there to keep a certain group of women from asking questions in one of the churchs of corinth. But arguing over one verse is pointless, there are many more. You will always argue them from a point of missed context or a different interpretation because this is the only way to argue in favor of such things. Do you not think that the people who interpreted the context that you googled could possibly be biased and be trying to prove it wasn't a sexist part of the bible?


In all the argument I've heard of people saying something was out of context on this forum, you are the first to try to explain the actual context and even then only barely. I gave you my reasoning, it seems pretty logical to me.

I guess if you read line 33 to make your point but failed to read line 36 and beyond, then you would miss the context of the entire quote.

Simple put:
Women are horrible evil people and should not be listened to. This is what John said.

Now, you can take that first line and misquote me to make me out as whatever. Or you could read the entire reference to get the real picture.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Dont let the lib doctors know about this, since so many libs suffer from OOC, Im sure they have a batch of drugs ready for them.
So, here we have our two most (supposedly) science loving and fact finding doing this to words theyve just chosen to misinterpret?
Do that with your work sometimes guys, just go ahead, and if you dont get canned, Im sure people will be looking at you sorta funny like if you will.
Theres simply no excuse well educated people can take this this far from reality, unless theyre trying, and in so doing, its them that are upset, them that are offended.
Today theres been studies on going back to the male teaching and female teaching, splitting them up, since males seem to suffer from this mess we have today, but then again, this could be a scientific argument, and some wouldnt let me defend the words of some old book by admitting this has traction.
Simply, the women taught the women back then, men taught the men .

I hope you do do better in your personal endeavours than whats shown here, and this is no attack, again, only fact

 

[riser]

See, you're taking your opinions without unstanding what you're talking about. Paul was quoting the Corinthians as saying women could not speak in Church. If you would actually read in Context, you would see Paul calls out to those asking if the word of God only came to them that they would know women could not talk in Church?
If you know the story of Corinthians, then you would realize why women in that city probably were not allowed to talk.

The context with which I judged it in was that, when it was written it was put in there to keep a certain group of women from asking questions in one of the churchs of corinth. But arguing over one verse is pointless, there are many more. You will always argue them from a point of missed context or a different interpretation because this is the only way to argue in favor of such things. Do you not think that the people who interpreted the context that you googled could possibly be biased and be trying to prove it wasn't a sexist part of the bible?


In all the argument I've heard of people saying something was out of context on this forum, you are the first to try to explain the actual context and even then only barely. I gave you my reasoning, it seems pretty logical to me.

The funny thing is this.. read it yourself and come to your own conclusions. But make sure to read the whole thing, not just the 'soundbyte' or single verse. I won't argue everything in the Bible is right or wrong as individual people wrote based on what they were taught by Jesus. It has changed, been corrupted, etc.

Consider this though. As you sit here today throwing out your case scenarios on it... what if the Bible has certain teachings in it that were truly and independently right, but then also has teachings that were wrong by all accounts? Is it for us to blindly follow the Bible, or should we take the messages and use that to interpret what is really going on? To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some wrong messages in there intentionally, accidently or not, in order to create people who could think.

And I'll stay it again, the Bible is the greatest form of government. A way of controlling people, absolutely. The question is who is there to do the controlling?

I believe in the Hand of God. We're all going to live and die. We're all going to age, some die soon, some die later, some get cancer, some don't, etc. There is plenty of good in the Bible whether it comes from 'God' or a person in general, I don't know that anyone could argue that the entirety of the Bible is 'bad.'

I've been around Bible thumpers and crazy loons about it. They give it a bad name and scare people away from even understanding portions of it. Then one day a guy I know who was very religious says to me: I don't know, you don't know, no one really knows if God exists. Live your life the best you can, have as much fun as you can and do right.. and in the end you will find out.

Some people need the Bible to be a good person. Others don't. I won't fault either way. To blatantly claim there is a God or there isn't a God.. that can be faulted. Sure, you have faith there is or isn't.. But really, there has to be a piece of you that believes there is a God or a piece that says there isn't one.

I look at it this way. The Bible contains stories and messages that provide example of situations for a message. Book of Job is always brought up. People love to go into detail about it and all that. Guess what? Bad things happen to good people, move on, go on, and don't spite other people. The saying has evolved, "Bad things happen to good people because they can." If Job was a bad person and that stuff happened to him, the message would be pointless, right?

No matter what happens, if you lead a principle based life, you'll never have to worry about your choices. Steven Covey.

 

[johnsonma]

I don't have a problem with anything you said riser, but most people don't view the bible like that and they try pressing the viewpoints in it on other people. Not to mention that like you said, those view points are up to interpretations. Hell, there are different "Christian" churches that can't even agree on interpretations. The bible is not infallible.

 

[riser]

No doubt, and even I at one point would say I was athetist. At some point I looked at the people who said they were Christians and thought.. no you're not. I haven't fulled read the Bible. Often, when someone throws something in my face about the Bible, I'll go read the entirety of it instead of one or two lines. Once you see the full context you can really come to your own conclusions on it. God or no God, it makes sense regardless and something I'd want to live by.

By now, we know there are false statements in the Bible. It's man made; by that, we know it is wrong. We should have the sense about us to know better. But there is some truth in it that have more or less become universal laws that we follow today. You can only do so much and know so much. In the end if you believe and live by that, it's the best you can really do and shall be judged by that.

To those who don't beleive in God yet live a good and honest life. Do you need to fear God in order to follow his word? What of the person who doesn't know of God yet lives by his word unknowningly? I'm told by many that they go to hell becaues they have not accepted Jesus and God; To me, that it crazy. I don't subscribe to that kind of concept. I'm at odd with many things in the book, but that doesn't mean I wholly accept nor deny it.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

You ever see a kid showing an adult something?
They have to have the center of attention.
They have to say no, because theyre understanding of what theyre showing is the only way?

Ive been off of milk for decades

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

No doubt, and even I at one point would say I was athetist. At some point I looked at the people who said they were Christians and thought.. no you're not. I haven't fulled read the Bible. Often, when someone throws something in my face about the Bible, I'll go read the entirety of it instead of one or two lines. Once you see the full context you can really come to your own conclusions on it. God or no God, it makes sense regardless and something I'd want to live by.

By now, we know there are false statements in the Bible. It's man made; by that, we know it is wrong. We should have the sense about us to know better. But there is some truth in it that have more or less become universal laws that we follow today. You can only do so much and know so much. In the end if you believe and live by that, it's the best you can really do and shall be judged by that.

To those who don't beleive in God yet live a good and honest life. Do you need to fear God in order to follow his word? What of the person who doesn't know of God yet lives by his word unknowningly? I'm told by many that they go to hell becaues they have not accepted Jesus and God; To me, that it crazy. I don't subscribe to that kind of concept. I'm at odd with many things in the book, but that doesn't mean I wholly accept nor deny it.

I would add this.
In the bible, we are all Gods children, and so, if we are born where His word is never taught, or isnt even in our language, how then can a fair and just God leave His children to just die?
There will be an intervention for all, it doesnt say we die it says:
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And if any one's name was not found written in the BOOK OF LIFE he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Now, if this doesnt leave some wriggle room, I dont know what does, and as any parent to their child, many chances

 

[chunkymonster]

Old testament or new testament......... major difference.

Very true. The Old Testament laws and rituals only apply to Judaism and the Jewish peoples. It is incorrect to hold a Christian to the laws and rituals of the Old Testament as the teachings in New Testament supersede the laws and rituals of the Old Testament.

For example, the Old Testament spelled out hundreds of dietary laws, detailing what animals/foods were "clean" and "unclean" for people to eat; the New Testament removes those dietary laws teaching that all animals are "clean" and good for eating. The Old Testament taught and "eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" whereas the New Testament teaches "if someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other". The Old Testament holds the Sabbath Day as sacred and to be kept aside specifically for worship; however, the New Testament stresses that believers are to be godly in the hearts and minds every day and set aside a day (any day, not specifically the Sabbath) for worship and rest. The Old Testament stressed outward demonstrations of belief in and loyalty through sacrifices, rituals, and offerings, whereas the New Testament emphasizes the spiritual life and appeals to the intellect, will, emotions, and to the conscience.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/30/religious-fundamentalism-categorised-mental-illness-cured-_n_3359267.html?utm_hp_ref=uk#comments
Well, we cant have guns, but believers need to be hit/shot/drugged or something

 

[Reynod]

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Sh*t almost all of my teachers have been women... I knew Mrs. Huntington was going to hell, how dare she have authority over me!



"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)

-This sounds like a good way to get a nights sleep on the couch.


Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

50 sheckels is about 150$...


Still think that the bible is the infallible word of God? It seems pretty clear that if you think God wrote this book then God is an asshole and thinks women are second class citizens.

God is Tucker Max then ??

 

[musical marv]

After reading this, it got me thinking.
In some ways, this reminds me of dem party.
What]http://www.gotquestions.org/Sadducees-Pharisees.html

What do you against the Liberals?I* am a Liberal myself.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

marv, we all have some liberal in us, its just that some wont believe a terrorist when hes already taken responsibility for something.
In other words, facts dont mean as much as philosophy, like Ive said, theyve raised that level to high as God, and like believing loons who kill for goodness, facts wont matter to them as well.
You listen and discern, its all anyone can ask of another, many dont listen, and therefore cant discern.
I guess the denial is what Im trying to put forth here, and thats what I have against the libs, as reading this, I dont deny what some whackos have done in the name of belief, which is similar as Ive said, to some libs positions, but they deny it, so since some think theyre perfect, its no wonder some say evil doesnt exist.

Does this sound right to you marv?

 

[riser]

After reading this, it got me thinking.
In some ways, this reminds me of dem party.
What]http://www.gotquestions.org/Sadducees-Pharisees.html

What do you against the Liberals?I* am a Liberal myself.

I'll try to explain where the Liberal thought process goes off track. While we all want world peace, end hungry, and everything in the world to be fair, it can't happen.

In listening to the liberal argument, often it's foundation of change is based on the foundation of conversatism's existance. In order for the liberal argument to be plausible, we must exist in a current state held together by the conversative nature.

Wages for example. Though capitalism, our country and experienced gaps and formed multiple classes. The liberal argument is that we raise wages to bring the lower wage earners up. This throws off how the economy works.

Marriage. Conservatives brought forth the concept of marriage in a religious institution in the US. I won't argue the origins of marriage though. Religions generally do not allow gay marriages. Liberals want gay people to be able to marry. This is a conservative idealogy adopted by the gov't. To allow a gay couple to use the term "marry" would be an attack on the conservative idealogy of marriage. Call it a civil union to bestow the benefits generally offered to a 'marriage' and the issue may not be as important.

Guns. Because the liberal movement doesn't like guns, they want to take them away from everyone who isn't a government entity - basically, broad and general. Whereas the conservative argument is if you don't want one, don't buy one.

Can we move this argument to TV? How long before we can't watch some programming because the liberal movement is against it? Just change the channel on decent programming.

Now, where the Liberal movement is correct in some cases is a progressive ideology. Though, it can't happen over night and things take a long time to happen in our government. Unfortunately it seems the movement is much faster than what our government is and therefore conflict starts. What, 60-70 years ago blacks were able to vote, 80 or so years ago women got rights? Everything in moderation; change in this country should remain slow and steady, not radical changes to appease one group or another.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Those changes of great need are mainly gone now.
The overnight right, as I will call it, isnt called for because they dont exist anymore, as theyve been adopted into our society and/or our constitution.
While some things arent completely absorbed into our society, but are thru the law, some are resentful, and hold out towards the end.
These people wont live forever, and once gone, so to their corrupted ideas.

This is presenting a problem for those whose mainly made a living on some of these problems, and since they no longer exist in law, and is becoming more and more seldom in offense, they have to continue to find ways to champion this ideal in different but related forms to keep their positions and their voting block intact.
Its often why we see reverse discrimination, which is worse than the original, as it means the champions are actually a different form of bigot, one not hating for a wrong doing, but one hating for revenge/payback, and are of the same ilk as those who keep things going like the IRA, the anti Jewish Muslim etc.
Those people are somehow allowed to stay in the liberal tent, and is why we see much dislike for Israel, for instance, where they are simply defending themselves, yes, they may be more powerful, hold all the cards, but thats also just a more better reason to not use force but diplomacy, but the liberal left generally only sees the attacks from Israel, and mainly ignores the original attacks by Hezbollah or whomever, and this is a perfect example of reverse discrimination.
We have bigoted laws created and held in place to make up for past bigotry, which is again, reverse discrimination, and possibly opens the door for newer resentments to creep in, and prolongs the bigotry that would/could die if left alone, each to their own, with all rights for all, and equal, not separate.
Tho we cant force others into our society, we shouldnt encourage their seperation from it either, where culturalism does this very thing, and allows those champions control, bigotry to possibly exist, and holds little for those separated for the promise of this country, as they hold themselves seperate from it, yet it persists, is championed as separate but equal, and tho we coddle as to how long it will take these societies within our greater society, we force and insist changes on the rest be done overnight.